TLDR; Yes, I’m convinced it is — there you have it.
Based on the information gathered looking into various longevity influencers and studies, it looks like approx 3h 30min is an optimal time per week to spend on strength training. For me, this translates into 3 sessions of around 1h 10min each which is more than I’d like to spend on it.
I conducted an experiment* across 12 weeks to determine if strength training twice a week is enough to continue progressing. I wanted to see how I could get the same or better effect by modifying my usual strength training. During this experiment, I trained 3 times a week for 6 weeks with bodyweight as usually, and then 2 times a week for another 6 weeks but with weights. I measured the results using a machine (seca mBCA)** to see what influence each training period had, including once before starting, once after the first 6 weeks, once at the end.
My results: after the first 6 weeks, my muscle mass actually went down by 0.3kg, forming 33.8% of the body mass. Not sure how it went down as before starting, I barely moved at all but these results are not 100% accurate. After the second 6 weeks, it went up by 0.85kg, forming 36.3% of the body mass (this also considers slight weight loss during the second phase).
More importantly, after the first 6 weeks, I was able to do one chin-up, barely, with effort. After the second 6 weeks, I was able to do 2 without much effort! The ultimate goal is to be functional, be independent, able to lift myself up if needed — for whatever reason I might need it while being 80 years old, perhaps rescuing cats or dogs from the treetops, perhaps escaping from a thief, only life will tell.
I also in general felt noticeably stronger after the second period of training!
For the first 6 weeks, I did strength training with bodyweight only. I added more reps and I tried to make exercises more difficult across the weeks (e.g. move slower / add small jumps into the exercise, etc.), however, it’s very hard to measure this. In the second phase, I intentionally started with as heavy weights as I could manage. It’s so much easier to track the progress with weights — you just add additional kg and you’ll know for sure how much something is harder now! Also, I actually wouldn’t even be able to recover fully between the trainings if I’d do the same routine three times per week.
The most important part is actually this — what you do during the strength training matters so much more compared to training twice or three times. It hit me as so obvious after this experiment but before the experiment, I was mainly concentrated on the time. My brain continues to amaze me with the things it doesn’t understand and how clear things become once it does.
I used to be a fan of bodyweight exercises because I felt that otherwise, I’d be tied to gyms and weights, etc. and I wouldn’t be able to train wherever. That’s true, however — it doesn’t really happen so often that for some reason I don’t have access to weights for example, and when it does (maybe on a trip), then I can still do body-weight exercises as maintenance until I get back. So this was a pseudo-issue I invented for myself. Additionally, I feel so much better after starting using weights!
And also, coincidentally, while I was doing the experiment, I also came across this study: Zhang et al., Br J Sports Med, 2026. It’s an analysis that followed 147 374 people across up to 30 years, and found no additional all-cause mortality benefit training strength above ~120min/week. This did not track twice vs more per week but I do full-body training twice per week and this translates exactly into approx 2 hours.
*I’m fully aware a study where N=1 can not be considered scientific.
**The machine’s skeletal muscle measurements have shown a 97% correlation with whole-body MRIT, so it’s the best for tracking trends as it’s not 100% precise.
